| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Brent Verner <brent(at)rcfile(dot)org>, Rod Taylor <rbt(at)zort(dot)ca>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] system catalog relation of a table and a |
| Date: | 2001-12-16 22:23:56 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0112161744310.641-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane writes:
> I think it'd be a bit surprising if "pg_dump -t table" would dump
> sequences declared independently of the table. An example where you'd
> likely not be happy with that is if the same sequence is being used to
> feed multiple tables.
>
> I agree that dumping all such sequences will often be the desired
> behavior, but that doesn't leave me convinced that it's the right
> thing to do.
>
> Any comments out there?
The more general question is: Should 'pg_dump -t table' dump all objects
that "table" depends on? Keep in mind that this could mean you have to
dump the entire database (think foreign keys). In my mind, dumping an
arbitrary subset of dependencies is not a proper solution, though.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-12-16 22:24:04 | Re: Bulkloading using COPY - ignore duplicates? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-12-16 22:23:39 | Re: Explicit config patch 7.2B4 |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-12-17 05:30:59 | SunOS patch for memcmp() |
| Previous Message | Brent Verner | 2001-12-16 11:30:21 | Re: system catalog relation of a table and a serial sequence |